Thanks... hehe - got permission to come back in for a couple of minutes because the party's going on 'til Monday when my son gets back from Uni. Oh! Mrs KM thinks you lot are all mad by the way. Anyway, to answer your points:

Quote:

... anyone who wanted to could train to become a dentist or an airline pilot.

Anyone can get married. They have to comply with the rules of course just as people must comply with rules to become a member of the ADA.

Quote:

...or an airline pilot.

Not anyone, no - there are public safety restrictions on who can become a pilot in the US and elsewhere.

Quote:

why should the feelings some people may or may not feel about their own marriages as a result trump the right of others to be able to get married at all?

Because needlessly upsetting people should be avoided where it's possible to do so. We've proved it's possible in Europe. The definition of marriage would have to change to accommodate same sex marriage whereas it could stay the same with a separate term. That's why we have the 'mens 100m freestyle' and the 'women's 100m freestyle' - because people might get upset if the only option were '100m freestyle' - take it or leave it.

Quote:

I'm not sure that the argument that "this group should be denied the rights I enjoy, because if they had those rights I would feel bad about my own marriage" would get very far in a courtroom ...

You're right - the Women's Association and women's swimming team wouldn't get very far with it either trying to exclude men from membership or participation. One would need to advance the reasons and legal merit of why the person feels bad.

Quote:

If it's just a case of someone not being able to deal with the fact they don't feel as sparkly inside as they would otherwise, well, that really isn't my problem

No, your problem is not that people don't feel sparkly but that they have deeply held objections that are protected by law and respected in the vast majority of states and nations throughout the world.

It wasn't a claim but a question. As it turned out - ungrammatical reporting of a judgment rather than an ungrammatical judgment - we've moved on.

km

The particular finding does not have the solecism: yes indeed that has been established. However, the claim that, had it indeed included the solecism it would have been the first case of a legal finding including a grammatical error--that remains to be validated. And of course you are right that the grammatical mode of your sentence is a question, but the syntactical purport of the query is to imply an affirmative response via a reductio ad absurdum presented as an enthymeme (the enthymeme expressed as a syllogism: any statement that includes such a grammatical solecism must be stupid; this one includes such a solecism; therefore the statement is silly) and so is, in effect, a logical assertion couched as a grammatical question. You can if you wish alter the evident intent of your initial post from assertion to query, but when the wind is southerly anyone can and will know a hawk from a handsaw.

Over-analytical. I asked the question before I had read the judgment. When six kindly furnished it I conceded the grammatical point straight away. Asking me to 'validate' a question after I'd withdrawn it is absurd.

Oh, but I did withdraw it, several times. Maybe those nasty IVF programs are robbing you of treatment for your short-term memory loss. Or your long-term delusion. And I wouldn't be too quick to throw "credibility" around if I were you. It's pretty clear your own account is overdrawn.

Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.

All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.